The judgment below

Of the judgment below, the part concerning the land in the attached list 5 through 9 shall be reversed, and this part of the case shall be reversed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. In a case where the issue of title trust on a parcel of land is disputed between a registered titleholder, such as a clan and a clan member, if it is proved that a clan exists with an organic organization to a certain extent at the time the registration of the registered titleholder was completed, and the following land has been proved directly by the process or content of the clan; the relationship between the registered titleholder and the clan; the relationship between the registered titleholder; the relationship between the registered titleholder and the members of the registered titleholder; the circumstances in which the registration was completed; the status of the establishment of a clan centering on the Si, the number of graves and the memorials; the size and management status of the land; the receipt and disbursement relation of the proceeds of the land; the payment relation to the land; the payment relation to the tax and public charges; the possession of the registration certificate; and the registration and management relation with other land owned by the registered titleholder; and there is sufficient data to recognize that the land is owned by the same clan, it can be recognized that the land is a title trust in

(1) Article 202 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that “The principle of free evaluation of evidence, which is declared by Article 202 of the Civil Procedure Act, is unnecessary to be bound by the rules of evidence, and does not allow a judge’s arbitrary judgment.” Thus, the establishment of facts shall be in accordance with logical and empirical rules based on the principle of justice and equity, and even if the fact-finding falls under the discretion of a fact-finding court, it shall not exceed the limit (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2009Da7198, 7204, Apr. 13, 2012).”